Horton v. Horner
Ohio Supreme Court
This is a bill in chancery, and comes before this court, by ap*peal from the court of common pleas of' Lucas county. The object of the bill is to collect a claim in favor of the complainant, as assignee of James H. Forsyth, against the defendant, *for the purchaso money of a tract of land sold by Forsythto the defendant, and to enforce the-vendor’s lien for said purchase money.
Read the full summary
This is a bill in chancery, and comes before this court, by ap*peal from the court of common pleas of' Lucas county. The object of the bill is to collect a claim in favor of the complainant, as assignee of James H. Forsyth, against the defendant, *for the purchaso money of a tract of land sold by Forsythto the defendant, and to enforce the-vendor’s lien for said purchase money. The bill states that on July 5, 1836, James H. Forsyth, by verbal agreement, sold the defendant, for $2,844, one-half of a certain ninety acres of land ; that, in performance of that agreement on his part, he, on the…
1Opinion of the CourtHitchcock, J.
The first question presented to the court for consideration is on a motion made by complainant, similar to the one made in the court of common pleas, to strike from the files the amended and supplemental answer, setting up the statute of limitations and of fraud.
Section 114 of the practice act (Swan’s Stat. 684) provides, *442“ That when any cause is reserved by appeaL to the Supreme Court, the appeal shall be tried on the pleadings made up in the court of common pleas, unless for good cause shown ; and on payment of costs, the court should permit either or both parties to alter their pleadings;”…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Liebscher v. StateNebraska Supreme Court · 1903
- State v. DunhamOhio Court of Appeals · 1997
- State v. HatfieldNebraska Supreme Court · 1984
- Huwe v. KnechtOhio Court of Appeals · 1919
- In re T.S.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2022
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.